Paramount exec faces skeptical crowds on post-SOPA outreach tour

Declaring himself "humbled" by the backlash against the Stop Online Piracy Act …

In recent weeks, Al Perry, a senior executive at Paramount Pictures, has toured the East Coast speaking at law schools. He has struggled to repair Hollywood's battered image and convince skeptical audiences of the need for more aggressive copyright enforcement.

The plan for the tour emerged in the wake of January's collapse of the Stop Online Piracy Act. Perry sent letters to numerous law schools. "We at Paramount have been humbled by the strong public opposition" to SOPA, he wrote. Admitting that Paramount has "much to learn," he sought an opportunity to share Paramount's perspective and hear what students and faculty had to say.

The tour is now underway. Perry visited Yale Law School on March 27, Brooklyn Law School on Tuesday, and the University of Virginia Law School on Wednesday. Sources tell Ars that Perry made roughly the same remarks at all three events. We have the most information about Perry's Yale talk, thanks to detailed notes provided by Margot Kaminski of Yale's Information Society Project.

Hollywood's "rogue site" problem

Perry's remarks focused on the shift from peer-to-peer file-sharing to file-sharing websites. "Cyberlockers" such as Megaupload are one example. But Perry also pointed to MovieBerry as an example of an infringing site that looks legitimate to many consumers and has even convinced legitimate companies to buy advertising.

Perry conceded that "cyberlocker" sites were not inherently illegal, but he said sites like Megaupload have crossed the line because their business model was supported by "not much else other than copyright infringement." He claimed that the top five cyberlockers get tens of billions of page views per year, generating millions of dollars in profits.

Perry emphasized the large number of jobs supported by Hollywood movies. Hollywood employs more than just actors and directors, he said. "We have drivers, florists, people moving things around." Yet thanks to online file-sharing, he claimed, Hollywood is making fewer movies, and spending less on each one. That means fewer jobs.

Perry stressed the need for additional legislation to crack down on "rogue sites." He argued that the new domain seizure powers created by the 2008 Pro-IP Act were insufficient to deal with the problem. And he denounced the OPEN Act, sometimes touted as a SOPA alternative, as "unworkable."

At the Brooklyn event, Perry's comments were followed by a rebuttal from Brooklyn Law School Professor Jason Mazzone, who pointed out that Perry's remarks had completely ignored limitations on copyright such as fair use. According to an account by Mazzone's colleague Derek Bambauer, Perry responded by saying that Paramount "wants to give fair use 'a wide berth,' and that their core concerns are about full downloads of their films, not uses of clips and such." But he conceded that SOPA had not made such allowances for fair use.

At the University of Virginia, Perry's remarks were followed by a rebuttal by Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, who argued that Hollywood's failing profits had less to do with Internet file-sharing than with the industry's failure to produce good movies and come up with innovative business models.

Tough crowds

A source described the Yale audience as "very hostile" to Perry's arguments. When audience members pressed Perry on the free speech implications of SOPA-style copyright enforcement, Perry denied that there were any. Copyright infringement, he said, was "theft plain and simple," and bills like SOPA simply didn't raise First Amendment concerns.

The Yale audience also gave Perry a hard time about copyright terms; it now takes 70 years after an author's death for a work to fall into the public domain. One audience member pressed Perry on whether such a long term was necessary, asking whether Paramount could accept a shorter copyright term. Perry dodged the question, saying he was "not here to address that."

"Does it make you uncomfortable that you can't say yes?" asked another student.

Bambauer described the Brooklyn audience as "thoughtful and civil," but he said that students "evinced skepticism about the movie industry's good faith and bona fides."

The atmosphere at Virginia was relatively polite. Alan Pate, a third-year law student at Virginia, told Ars that "no one really challenged Perry that much."

When one Virginia student pressed Perry on his claim that fewer movies were being produced, Perry conceded that his numbers were limited to the major studios. He conceded that he wasn't suggesting movie production was declining overall. But he insisted that the new, independent movies were of lower quality than the big-budget films produced by the major studios.

Pate said Perry and Brodsky's arguments didn't change his views on copyright law. "It was nice to see the arguments laid out by both sides," he said. "But it didn't really change anything. My takeaway was that right now, there are no clear answers."

But another Virginia attendee expressed surprise that Perry hadn't made more effort to meet skeptical audiences halfway. "You don't get unlimited chances to address people," the source said. By making essentially the same arguments the studios had made before the SOPA debacle, the source told us, Perry missed an opportunity to persuade the next generation of lawyers.

When one Virginia student pressed Perry on his claim that fewer movies were being produced, Perry conceded that his numbers were limited to the major studios. He conceded that he wasn't suggesting movie production was declining overall. But he insisted that the new, independent movies were of lower quality than the big-budget films produced by the major studios.

I guess that really just depends on what your definition of quality is, eh?

- Theft of property, in which--without proof of intent to deprive--no criminal act has occurred.- Theft of service, in which someone must unlawfully take, appropriate or carry away any property of another with intent of depriving him of the property.

Thus, copyright violation is NOT theft. I'm stunned that no one called him on it.

I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't figured out that people are legally, economically, and morally tired of Hollywood.

Legally, they're trying to bypass the court system. People may not be able to articulate the issue, but I think most understand it. When you do that, you undermine faith in the system...and people are more willing to buck it.

Economically, people have trouble sympathising when a "low return" movie still nets millions over production and distribution costs. When your siblings, cousins, neighbors whatever are worried about their job, they don't care much that you didn't make as much as you'd wanted.

Morally, they're tired of having to jump through hoops to do the right thing. If Hollywood made things more readily available, piracy would go down considerably. But if your options are pirate, wait 6 months and pay too much for a DVD rife with ads and pointless warnings, or wait even longer and stream...people start pirating.

Also, I lack sympathy for someone with the free time to visit a bunch of school to regurgitate arguments. I'd love to be able to take a few weeks off, but I'm too busy actually working.

But he insisted that the new, independent movies were of lower quality than the big-budget films produced by the major studios.

You mean...like... The Hurt Locker? The Artist? No Country for Old Men? Brokeback Mountain?

Yes, those are all much lower quality than Transformers 4: Big Boobed Explosion Robots... (Yes, yes, there's studio involvement in those four I listed, but I'm banking on the 'big-budget' bit. Also, not much time for research as I'm off this PC in 4 minutes...)

The Yale audience also gave Perry a hard time about copyright terms; it now takes 70 years after an author's death for a work to fall into the public domain. One audience member pressed Perry on whether such a long term was necessary, asking whether Paramount could accept a shorter copyright term. Perry dodged the question, saying he was "not here to address that."

Of course he's not. That topic is reserved for smoke-filled back rooms in DC.

Meanwhile, the public continues to pay for special-privileged enforcement of this private industry's inventory during that entire 70 years.

Morally, they're tired of having to jump through hoops to do the right thing. If Hollywood made things more readily available, piracy would go down considerably. But if your options are pirate, wait 6 months and pay too much for a DVD rife with ads and pointless warnings, or wait even longer and stream...people start pirating.

You nailed it with that statement. Hollywood has shot itself in the foot by making it so hard to get good, legal content online. People will gladly go to an online rental site and pay $3.99 to stream a new release. I pay that amount to Cinemanow and Amazon all the time. The problem is that there just isn't enough content available yet because the movie industry is fighting it tooth and nail. It's retarded.

People have Internet connections now that can download a HD movie in just a couple of minutes. Their options are A) download it P2P, B) go to the movie store and hope it's not out (if it's a popular new release then it probably is), or C) pay way too much to buy it.

Personally I don't download movies P2P. That's the honest truth. At the end of the day it is wrong to do. But if I want to watch it and it's not available legally online then I just don't watch it until it becomes available on Netflix or a movie rental site. If I'm really eager to see something then I go see it in the movie theater. Otherwise, it can wait. And if enough people are taking the same stance, and if that somehow cost the movie industry money, then maybe they'll get the hint and get their head out of the 80s and start making content available online.

I do think that piracy is costing the movie industry money. Not as much as they say, but still a significant amount. They need to understand that they're just not going to win the fight with the stance they're taking. Technology changes business models all the time, and long gone are the days of everyone renting physical DVDs or buying them. It's a thing of the past, and it's never coming back. If they stop spending millions on a losing battle and instead turn their focus towards providing a server that the consumer wants and will buy (online rentals at reasonable rates) they might be pleasantly surprised at how much piracy goes down and profits go up. Then they can focus their anti-piracy resources on stopping it overseas, which is where they're really losing money.

Personally I don't download movies P2P. That's the honest truth. At the end of the day it is wrong to do. But if I want to watch it and it's not available legally online then I just don't watch it until it becomes available on Netflix or a movie rental site. If I'm really eager to see something then I go see it in the movie theater. Otherwise, it can wait. And if enough people are taking the same stance, and if that somehow cost the movie industry money, then maybe they'll get the hint and get their head out of the 80s and start making content available online.

I think you're well and truly in the minority then. The studios only have themselves to blame if something isn't available legally when we want it. So they'll just have to live with me (and everyone else) downloading it in that situation.

Going to a cinema is about much more than seeing a movie as early as possible. If I was only interested in the 1s and 0s they show on screen I'd never need to go to the cinema. But I go frequently; it's an experience, a night out, an escape from the real world. Unfortunately it's harder and harder to find cinemas that are pleasant places to be.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

Quote:

I do think that piracy is costing the movie industry money. Not as much as they say, but still a significant amount. They need to understand that they're just not going to win the fight with the stance they're taking. Technology changes business models all the time, and long gone are the days of everyone renting physical DVDs or buying them. It's a thing of the past, and it's never coming back. If they stop spending millions on a losing battle and instead turn their focus towards providing a server that the consumer wants and will buy (online rentals at reasonable rates) they might be pleasantly surprised at how much piracy goes down and profits go up. Then they can focus their anti-piracy resources on stopping it overseas, which is where they're really losing money.

Personally I don't download movies P2P. That's the honest truth. At the end of the day it is wrong to do. But if I want to watch it and it's not available legally online then I just don't watch it until it becomes available on Netflix or a movie rental site. If I'm really eager to see something then I go see it in the movie theater. Otherwise, it can wait. And if enough people are taking the same stance, and if that somehow cost the movie industry money, then maybe they'll get the hint and get their head out of the 80s and start making content available online.

I think you're well and truly in the minority then. The studios only have themselves to blame if something isn't available legally when we want it. So they'll just have to live with me (and everyone else) downloading it in that situation.

Going to a cinema is about much more than seeing a movie as early as possible. If I was only interested in the 1s and 0s they show on screen I'd never need to go to the cinema. But I go frequently; it's an experience, a night out, an escape from the real world. Unfortunately it's harder and harder to find cinemas that are pleasant places to be.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

Actually I write software for a living, and I see it pirated.

So yes, I would.

so you don't mind sharing your source code?.

I don't own the source code, and that's a new argument anyway. I create IP (as part of a small team), and I see it pirated (the finished product, not the source code), and I am still a strong supporter of weaker IP laws, and I share and copy files freely.

You were wrong: I DO still feel the same way.

Even if I turned out to be the only person with an opinion like this I don't think it's relevant to the problem. "Wrong" or not, it's happening, and it's going to continue to happen no matter how much they fight it, or give speeches to law students. The only way to reduce it significantly is to out-compete it (e.g Steam, Spotify, etc)

I actually did bring up John Carter, and specifically put up a slide showing Disney's statement about the write off it had to take because of that one movie. I also put up box office data, domestic and worldwide, to show that the industry was relatively healthy despite the complaints, and data on the number of pictures, TV shows and other productions shot in British Columbia alone, to show that any concern about loss of jobs was missing the mark as long as there was so much runaway production. I also talked about the failure of anyone to validate industry numbers on economic impact and about the weaknesses of the attacks on cyberlockers, including the Warner Bros. wanted to do business with Megaupload before the industry got it busted. I was ready to play Nina Paley's "copying is not theft" song but time ran out before I could get to it.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

No, it's not an opinion. I get the whole civil disobedience thing, and there is a time and a place for it, but when people make a product and charge others for it then it's wrong to take it without paying them. The movie company has made many bad choices that have driven people to feel that downloading content is justified, but its not. There are other ways to get the attention of the movie companies (boycotts, etc).

visbis444 wrote:

ascension2020 wrote:

I do think that piracy is costing the movie industry money. Not as much as they say, but still a significant amount. They need to understand that they're just not going to win the fight with the stance they're taking. Technology changes business models all the time, and long gone are the days of everyone renting physical DVDs or buying them. It's a thing of the past, and it's never coming back. If they stop spending millions on a losing battle and instead turn their focus towards providing a server that the consumer wants and will buy (online rentals at reasonable rates) they might be pleasantly surprised at how much piracy goes down and profits go up. Then they can focus their anti-piracy resources on stopping it overseas, which is where they're really losing money.

Just because a company is still turning a profit doesn't mean they're not losing money from theft. Wal-mart makes billions but the money that they lose to shoplifters is still considered "losing money." Go to China or any other number of second world companies and walk down the street and you'll see store after store openly selling pirated movies, music, and software. That's where the real money is being lost (even if companies still make a net profit in those countries) and that's where the focus of these industries should be.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

Actually I write software for a living, and I see it pirated.

So yes, I would.

so you don't mind sharing your source code?.

I don't own the source code, and that's a new argument anyway. I create IP (as part of a small team), and I see it pirated (the finished product, not the source code), and I am still a strong supporter of weaker IP laws, and I share and copy files freely.

You were wrong: I DO still feel the same way.

Even if I turned out to be the only person with an opinion like this I don't think it's relevant to the problem. "Wrong" or not, it's happening, and it's going to continue to happen no matter how much they fight it, or give speeches to law students. The only way to reduce it significantly is to out-compete it (e.g Steam, Spotify, etc)

I think what you just said about not owning the IP is part of the problem. The fact that people are allowing large entities to own works that really belong to the people that create them is causing a shift of power to the wrong people. Business are great at funding projects that woudlnt otherwise happen, but there not good a being stewards of creative ownership. I think alot of problems would be solved if the creators maintained ownership to there work and licensed the work to the company for a limited time to profit off of that work. You can see the problem with copyrights being extended 70+ years after the life of the author as one example of this.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

No, it's not an opinion. I get the whole civil disobedience thing, and there is a time and a place for it, but when people make a product and charge others for it then it's wrong to take it without paying them. The movie company has made many bad choices that have driven people to feel that downloading content is justified, but its not. There are other ways to get the attention of the movie companies (boycotts, etc).

This is also an opinion. If it's not a fact that can be "proven" it's an opinion. You think it's wrong, others don't. "Wrong" is purely subjective.Like I've already said anyway, wrong or not is pretty unimportant: it's happening, and it'll keep happening until it's out-competed.

Quote:

visbis444 wrote:

ascension2020 wrote:

I do think that piracy is costing the movie industry money. Not as much as they say, but still a significant amount. They need to understand that they're just not going to win the fight with the stance they're taking. Technology changes business models all the time, and long gone are the days of everyone renting physical DVDs or buying them. It's a thing of the past, and it's never coming back. If they stop spending millions on a losing battle and instead turn their focus towards providing a server that the consumer wants and will buy (online rentals at reasonable rates) they might be pleasantly surprised at how much piracy goes down and profits go up. Then they can focus their anti-piracy resources on stopping it overseas, which is where they're really losing money.

Just because a company is still turning a profit doesn't mean they're not losing money from theft. Wal-mart makes billions but the money that they lose to shoplifters is still considered "losing money." Go to China or any other number of second world companies and walk down the street and you'll see store after store openly selling pirated movies, music, and software. That's where the real money is being lost (even if companies still make a net profit in those countries) and that's where the focus of these industries should be.

I lived in China for 4 years, 2003-2007. I bought new release movies from street vendors for less than a dollar. I bought software from bricks and mortar stores in the middle of university campuses for two or three dollars. I know perfectly well what it's like.

You can't lose revenue you never had. Box office revenue in China increased 35% in 2011.

Just because a company is still turning a profit doesn't mean they're not losing money from theft. Wal-mart makes billions but the money that they lose to shoplifters is still considered "losing money."

but this is the real point. even though Wal-Mart loses money, they aren't allowed to take someone's cell phone simply by accusing them of shoplifting. they can't go to their business and shut down the place, and find all their associates, and freeze their bank accounts.

I don't have to be shoplifter to be against Wal-Mart employees having that sort of power.

that is why I was against sopa… not because I think that piracy is OK. but because it is far beyond what ANY other industry would be allowed to do.. and the only reason they can get away with it is because the politicians think, "oh, it is only affecting the kids on the 'net, who really cares?" it is a NIMBY attitude.

the other way to look at is similar to immigration laws: there would never be a law that allowed a group of "concerned citizens" to simply accuse a business of employing illegal aliens and have the power to de list it from the phone book and have all it's advertising and street signing shut off. that would be laughed off the floor. but again, it's the internet, who cares?

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

Actually I write software for a living, and I see it pirated. So yes, I would.

so you don't mind sharing your source code?.

Sharing the source code to software is more analogous to sharing all recorded footage and the script of a movie, in the original, uncompressed format. Both can and are pirated without releasing the source code/footage. Just saying'.

I currently develop websites so there's not much to steal there, but I'm working on some games that I plan to release on WebGL platforms at a reasonable price. If I somehow got too big for my boots and charged for them at (even half of) AAA rates, I would expect nothing less than a brutal and unceremonious piracy-raping, assuming the games even get that popular.

The problem is that Hollywood is charging excessively handsome amounts for what's largely turd-on-a-stick, refusing to even supply this turd in the way the consumer wants despite that being cheaper, then mustering the audacity to steal millions of taxpayer dollars by having the government protect their consumer-hostile business models when it doesn't work out.Hollywood can't be fucked to innovate, so you have to pay tax to artificially keep them in business, good to see communism alive and well in none other than America!

I'm the customer, I'm always right, give me the content how and when I want it, for a fair price,or I'll just download everything you ever created, for free... that's the deal, take it or leave it

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

Have you asked the artists? Trent Reznor, Courtney Love and Amanda Fucking Palmer have all been fairly vocal about how they oppose the current regime and support loosening IP law. Even less well known artists like Jonathon Coulton and "Paul and Storm" who have been living off self-publishing for years have been extolling the virtues of less IP restriction. It's not just musicians either. I don't know if you've heard of this Cory Doctorow fellow...

I can't speak to movie makers, but I think you'll find that a lot of people are finding ways to engage audiences without threatening them with legal action.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

Having written a book ans self-published it because no publisher cared to even read it until I published it myself, then when I did one of them decided I had 'stolen' their work and sent me a C&D and threatening to take me to court if I didn't immediately desist publishing my own story.... So frankly, yes I'd love to see modern copyright burn.

I still write btw, but I only if it in electronic form and do so under a share a-like license making no profit off of it at all.

Personally I don't download movies P2P. That's the honest truth. At the end of the day it is wrong to do. But if I want to watch it and it's not available legally online then I just don't watch it until it becomes available on Netflix or a movie rental site. If I'm really eager to see something then I go see it in the movie theater. Otherwise, it can wait. And if enough people are taking the same stance, and if that somehow cost the movie industry money, then maybe they'll get the hint and get their head out of the 80s and start making content available online.

I think you're well and truly in the minority then. The studios only have themselves to blame if something isn't available legally when we want it. So they'll just have to live with me (and everyone else) downloading it in that situation.

Going to a cinema is about much more than seeing a movie as early as possible. If I was only interested in the 1s and 0s they show on screen I'd never need to go to the cinema. But I go frequently; it's an experience, a night out, an escape from the real world. Unfortunately it's harder and harder to find cinemas that are pleasant places to be.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

I wonder if you and all those supposed people would feel the same way if you ever released a book/movie/song?.

Wholly irrelevant. Copyright law only exists in order to promote arts and science. It's not meant to be a moral right or corporate/class welfare scheme.

If the taxpayers feel that enforcing copyright law in the long run with all its costs is not worth it, theeir feelings are more important than how copyright holders feel.

As for it being "wrong", that is only an opinion, and one that many (most?) people might disagree with. Illegal, yes. But although law and ethics have a fairly strong correlation they are certainly not the same thing.

No, it's not an opinion. I get the whole civil disobedience thing, and there is a time and a place for it, but when people make a product and charge others for it then it's wrong to take it without paying them.

So it's "wrong" when I share my music library with my circle of friends or when I copy a borrowed cd.

Same argument. Copyright law does not turn on whether the infringement is private or public.

If it's "wrong" to copy something without paying, this can't logically be limited to public copyright infringement.

Either all copyright infringement down to sharing among friends and family is wrong, or it isn't depending on the scale.

I don't understand. What was the point of his speaking tour? To try and brainwash students who would one day affect these laws? Ween them from young and when they are still pliable from pot and alcohol?

Because going around town to spout hyperbole and PR speak with the same message noone accepted previously is really quite pointess otherwise.

I don't understand. What was the point of his speaking tour? To try and brainwash students who would one day affect these laws? Ween them from young and when they are still pliable from pot and alcohol?

Because going around town to spout hyperbole and PR speak with the same message noone accepted previously is really quite pointess otherwise.

But that's what Hollywood's all about. Sequels. Remakes. Remasters. Repeats. It's clearly all the guy knows to do.